Cogito Ergo Dumb...Deciding Descartes...?

Question

Descartes famous solipsistic meditation "I think therefore I am". Designed to thwart even his tricky evil god which tried its darnedest to deceive the poor man of everything. He reasoned that there was at least one thing of which he could not be mistaken...his own existence.

I have noticed an ample sampling of Yahoo Philosophers who pull out Rene's old chestnut in a variety of situations, though within the world of academia, it has fallen from favor among somewhere between many and most. Perhaps its time to take a closer look at it...

Cartesians: What's so hot about this trite truism? Why do you agree, and what sort of questions does it answer?

Reneggers: Set them straight...Why is the famous phrase wrong? How has it been bastardized?

Answer 1

Okay, I'm one of your dabblers so I'm gonna answer this. Why not?

Descartes's argument was wrecked when he interpreted his introspection to mean there was a thinking thing in existence. I think that's why he's disdained -- because he sounds like he literally believed that, that there really was this Thinking Thing, this thing "I" which "exists," and "thinks." And then, sheesh, proceeded to try to prove the existence of God, using only reason. Doom!

But ... what's sticky about Cogito, ergo sum is, taken just at face value, I think in a way it does answer the question of what is beyond doubt. People lamely call this by different names, including ones that seem to indicate Descartes-style dualism or spiritualism, like "soul." But what we really are alluding to with "I am" "is" an ineffable present experience, "of" instantaneous be-ing, that sentient beings can "have." Philosophers - or anyone - can say precious little about it without becoming opaque and contradictory, but I think a lot of people see Cogito ergo sum and they say to themselves: aha, I know just what you mean. Cogito ergo sum is like a wink and a nudge, telling us that language really does go on vacation.

Answer 2

Existentialist Wars: Episode 1 Desecration of Descartes

Long ago in some shithole far away, a man pronounced his existence by uttering that his very thought proved it. And this mighty phrase was uttered again and again, and frequently was spoken out of the context from which it came. So frequent was its use that the phrase became a Nemesis of its own, slashing down the innocent musings of those who did not wish to think in the tyranny of those wielding it.

Then came the heretics of existentialism with their defiant message of individuals contriving an existence of their own. When examining the sentence " I think , therefore I am", why is thought the requirement for existence? Do we need go past the "I"? As many existentialists have noted, we all come from states of having no thought (Sartre's "Being of Nothingness" ). In that framework,every individual carves out an existence from nothing, a process of autonomy.

I believe the Descartes quote sounds rational to many who hear it for the first time and then repeat it ad nauseum for others. They do this without understanding the context in which it was used or even challenging the idea. The challenge is to get the people who use the sentence to consider the alternatives (and an entire body of philosophy is one heck of an alternative ) to thinking as a justification of existence.

Not looking for a "best answer" here, just griping.

Answer 3

The beauty of the cogito is that it finds at least a kernel of epistemological "truism." If I challenge all knowing transcendental, physical, or otherwise, I can always stand on the ground of my thought as nondeception from an outer source.

The big kicker seems, however, that such epistemological ground is an island and an oasis. You cannot build something logically from it (using it as a founding premise). It is answer that leads nowhere, yet it is an answer. In short, it is too solipsistic (and to a degree nihilistic).

Answer 4

I think therefore I am is a logical implication.

I think = A I am = B

A=>B

Thus in a truth table

A B A=>B

F F T I don't think therefore I am not.
F T T I don't think therefore I am.
T F F I think therefore I am not!
This statement cannot be true!
T T T I think therefore I am.

I am a lover of the cogito and I have always used it as a proof of idealism over materialism in my own cosmology.

Answer 5

(Shakes Head) Descartes..Descartes..
He was a wise old fool wasn`t he?

Desecrates foundationalism was built from clay, not stone as he reasoned. This foundation was intended to be the solid structure which we build any and all knowledge on. And it begins with the proposition (I think therefore I`am) which passed His "Method of doubt" system. Then the (sly ole fox) argued God exists indefinitely for the Question "Does God Exist" passed the method of doubt test.
The problem is his method of doubt system was built from introspection (looking inward).

Conditionally speaking - (If) all propositions must pass the "Method Of Doubt" test to be consider True knowledge (Then) introspection must be infallible.
The foundations of knowledge are subject to the same requirements as Architectural buildings. Introspection fails to meet the following requirements.

1. It must be secure - Our beliefs change overtime and vary culture to culture. They are anything but secure
2. Sufficient to support the structure.
(If beliefs where like deadbolts. Taking them out and changing their postion would cause the structure to collapse)

Now that we got that out the way its time to crush any all Cartesian belief`s that hold this to be the ultimate truism. I think therefore I exist is subjected to I .....
I have beliefs and Desires. I have a mind that that can project dreams and hallucinations (falsehoods). The combination of MY genes and the environment I was raised in shape My thinking. So in Large my reasoning is a reflection of me (subjective opionon) not the world around me (Objective Facts) Therefore how can I know with absolute certainty - that by examining My beliefs and desires carefully I can attain True knowledge? Desecrates thinks that if we reason with Clarity and Distinctness then our beliefs must be true. The problem my misguided cartesian souls is introspection is anything but infalliable.

Example - When Native Americans first witnessed the Europeans gun go boom they believed "Magic stick shoot fire." According to Descrates if they cannot doubt that the Magic Stick shoot fire then it must be knowledge. If they are wrong then they weren`t reasoning with clarity? No, there minds where (at the time) incapable of comprehending the mechanics as to way Magic stick go boom - For if they did they would not believe there was anything Magic about a gunshot. Furthermore their culture (enivoronment) believes in superstitious magic, hence at times what they see they attribute to Magic. (Beliefs where in large a reflection of them not the world around them)
Example 2 - In Optical illusions your mind believes what you think your eyes see. In most cases The illusionst doesn`t try to pull the wool over your eyes with complex imagery and flucuating light. He shows you a set of things in a pattern. The problem is the Pattern does not follow suite. 242424 becomes 24242(3). But wait! You saw it right? Or did you believe you saw it? If you where thinking clearly and distinctly then it must be true? Are our beliefs infalliabe? Or can introspection be a tricky thing altogether?

Descrates is my favorite philosopher. This guy was a straight hustler ufeelme? He can get you to believe in him by getting you to believe in you. Slick!!!! Probably could have been pimp.

Answer 6

I think therefore I am strikes me as a circular argument, declaration. It means nothing.

The statement, within each the two components isn't 'wrong'. It just isn't profound.

My feet hurt, therefore I am.
My ears ring therefore I am.


My dog doesn't think, therefore he isn't.

It's late, and I just returned from a log trip, so maybe I'm just unable to really dig into this.

Answer 7

I think, is a recognition of personal activity, not transferable in responsibility. the reality of that existence declares the existence of the one. It does nothing to reveal the nature of this reality, only that one does exist.

Answer 8

Many living creatures exist without thinking, including the brain dead. (in relation to creatures, if you mean by thinking, reasoning, rather than processing and reacting)

Answer 9

The answer is simple. Descartes is a classic deep thinker and among the fathers of modern geometry! And you!?

Answer 10

Gawd forbid that anyone less than an honorary Mensa member should ever have the temerity to quote one of the hallowed philosphers of old.

To quote an old compadre' " Me thinks thou art a dipsh*t."